Nuclear Green in a Nut Shell

I among others have been challenged for taking advocacy positions instead of offering analyses, and listening to people who disagree with my views. Yet I and others, for example Barry Brook, are simply advocating positions we arrived at by analysis after talking to people who hold different views. I came to the conclusion that I advocate by asking how a post carbon grid would operate. I assumed that everything was on the table, but what the climate scientists were telling us we needed to get rid of 80% of our CO2 emissions. I did a brief sector by sector analysis of the energy economy, and determined that the most obvious place to start was the generation of electricity for the grid, the sources of space heat, and hot water, and the replacement of fossil fuels in transportation. Since I was not sure about the elimination of fossil fuels in other sectors. i decided that it would not be wise to assume that the sectors I was ignoring were good candidates for an 80% fossil fuel reduction. This included agriculture, the military, and air and water born transportation.

I concluded that the electrification of rail transportation was practical, and that electrical rail had good potential to replace long range trucking. I further concluded that solar systems could provide hot water in many parts of the country, and that there was good potential to use solar for space heating in some areas. I also noted that in much of the country, air conditioning was the rule in homes, offices and businesses. Although ground source heat pumps are efficient, they are expensive and also expensive to service. Air source hear pumps rely on a technology that is very similar to air conditioning, Replacement cycles for air conditioning systems are such that most of the cost of air source space heating conversion would be covered by the cost of replacing worn out air conditioning systems.

I had some doubts about biofuel replacements for fossil fuels, but I came to the conclusion that batteries and capacitors technology was evolving rapidly enough to replace fossil fuels in non rail surface transportation by 2050. Thus electrification offered a significant part of the solution, and thus it was very important that the decarbinization of the grid would approach 100% by 2050.

I then looked at efficiency, of which much was expected. I quickly discovered that there was a serious conceptual problem with the efficiency solution. Economists have known for 150 years about Jevons Paradox. Jevons a 19th century resource economists, had discovered that greater efficiency in the use of coal lead to more demand for coal. Other economists have noted that if efficiency does not always lead to an increase in energy demand, a rebound effect is quite robust. And thus in the absence of energy price increases efficiency cannot be counted on for big carbon use savings.

I noted that some other people were advocating a simplified lifestyle. Most people, i thought, would prefer to not adopt such a lifestyle. I concluded that the simple lifestyle was likely to lead to greater social conflict, a diminished quality of life, and a lower life expectancy. Some people were pointing to Cuba as a model for a low energy simplified society, but i felt that such a choice came with the cost of political and human rights for the Cuban people, and that most of the people of Cuba would prefer a high energy lifestyle if they could choose. The evidence for this was obvious, Cuba was a dictatorship. The communist party of Cuba maintained control of political power, and was prepared to use violence against anyone who objected.

Thus I felt that there was no alternative to replacing CO2 emitting electrical generation capacity with post carbon electrical sources. I had not ruled out renewables, but I felt that intermittency was a problem to be solved. I looked at the problem of intermittency, and asked renewable advocates what they would do when sun and wind failed. Use the grid for backup they answered. But I asked, I thought we wanted to get rid of carbon sources on the Grid. After they discovered I was not going to accept the Grid answer, they offered efficiency. When i brought up Jevons and rebounds, they turned to backups like batteries, pump storage, and Compressed air storage. I investigated all of these proposed back up technologies and found that they were all expensive and were inefficient to boot. Compressed air storage, required the of natural gas. A further renewable strategy is to create redundant solar and wind facilities, and link them with an expanded grid. The linked system is more likely to provide reliable electricity, than stand alone solar or wind units. However like energy storage backups, the redundancy plan turns out to be more expensive than conventional nuclear power systems. I did offer one novel renewable back up plan. Molten Salt Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors can be built with low prices and have attractive features that makes them useful in peak power.back up roles. LFTRs thus could provide reliable, relatively low cost backups for renewables. But, the LFTRs would be capable of operating full time. Thus it would be cheaper to remove the renewable electrical sources from the system and simply operate the LFTRs full time.

When I calculated the cost of renewables with backup, and compared it to the cost of nuclear power I reached the conclusion that nuclear power was cheaper. Renewable advocates rejected this conclusion. Nuclear has to be more expensive, they said. They complained about how unsafe reactors are. They pointed to the so called "problem of nuclear waste." They raised the issue of nuclear proliferation. They argued that we were running out of uranium.

But i was aware of a Generation IV nuclear technology that could answer all these issues. it was Molten Salt technology, and i knew about it, because my father had worked on it for 20 years. So I reviewed the evidence accumulated in Oak Ridge between 1950 and 1980. i reviewed the ORNL research, and looked at recent discussions. There seemed to be a strong case. Another Generation IV technology, the Integral Fast Reactor appear to also offer viable solutions to many unclear power issues, but is likely to be more expensive and more technologically challenging than MSRs, and objections may be raised on grounds of nuclear proliferation dangers. Generation III and even Generation II nuclear technology appear to be an acceptable bridge, but conventional nuclear technology does not solve all the problems that MSRs and IFRs will solve.

All of my conclusions have come by analysis. I have listened to the advocates of other viewpoints. My analysis points to the following conclusions:

1. Fossil Fuel are on their way out as energy sources.

2. Fossil fuel energy technology will have to be replaced.

3. Efficiency cannot be counted on to replace fossil fuels use.

4. Renewables require back up.

5. Renewables with fossil fuel back up will not meet 2050 carbon emission goals.

6. Renewables with energy storage back ups will be more expensive than nuclear.

7. Renewables with redundancy will be more expensive than nuclear.

8. Nuclear power is a less expensive and more reliable source of post carbon electricity than renewables.

9. Generation IV nuclear technology offers many attractive features, and could solve some or all of the objections now raised to nuclear power.

Since I first completed this analysis, I have reviewed its components on a number of occasions. My reviews continue to demonstrate that my analysis remains sound. During the last 3 years numerous studies related to components of my analysis have been published. These studies point to the same conclusions. Further, these studies have not received effective contradiction. This is the case for my original analysis. There is a growing body of evidence that the renewables paradigm has failed.

My advocacy is primarily based on reports of the findings of my analyses and the analyses offered by others. I believe that those who disagree with us need to offer strong reasons for doing so, or loose credibility. So far they have not done so,

Energy costs and advanced nuclear technology

Energy costs are a major concern for Nuclear Green. I am on the lookout for cost data on renewables, and one of my stated concerns is lowering nuclear costs. I contend that renewable generated electricity cost more than nuclear generated electricity, but that the cost of conventionally generated nuclear power, while lower than cost of renewable generated electricity will still be far to expensive to be satisfactory.

I have noted that nuclear generated electricity sells for 4.5 cents per kWh. The Indians seem to be making money at this price even when the power comes from new reactors and is only generated part of the time, due to a uranium shortage. Other nations that will be competing in a post-carbon energy environment, will have to match Indian energy costs, or loose the competition for energy intensive industries. Indian labor costs are lower than those of Western Europe and North America, and if Indian energy costs will also be lower, India will have a significant economic advantage during this century.

Thus it would be highly advantageous for the United States to adopt low cost nuclear technologies. Both labor costs and the cost of materials and parts play a significant role in nuclear costs. So low nuclear costs requite a simple, cheap to build, reactor with low material input as well as relatively few parts. Building reactors in factories could lower costs. Small simple reactors could open the door to other approaches to lowering nuclear costs.

I am hardly the only person who has seen the potential value of this course. Senator Mark Udall has just introduced legislation titled "the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009,calling for the following,

AUTHORIZED RESEARCH INITIATIVES—In carrying out the program under this subsection, the Secretary shall conduct research to lower the cost of nuclear reactor systems, including research regard
‘‘(A) modular and small-scale reactors; ‘
‘(B) balance-of-plant issues;
‘‘(C) cost-efficient manufacturing and
‘‘(D) licensing issues; and
‘‘(E) enhanced proliferation controls.

Someone in Washington is starting to get the right ideas. We still need to look at what sort of reactor is going to fulfill Senator Udall's expectations. We can expect to see a push for the GE-Hitachi PRISM reactor to accompany this legislation. Steve Kirsch is telling people:

One nice thing about the S-PRISM is that they’re modular units and of relatively low output (one power block of two will provide 760 MW). They could be emplaced in excavations at existing coal plants and utilize the same turbines, condensers (towers or others), and grid infrastructure as the coal plants currently use, and the proper number of reactor vessels could be used to match the capabilities of those facilities. Essentially all you’d be replacing is the burner (and you’d have to build a new control room, of course, or drastically modify the current one). Thus you avoid most of the stranded costs. If stranded costs can thus be kept to a minimum, both here and, more importantly, in China, we’ll be able to talk realistically not just about stopping to build new coal plants but replacing the existing ones, even the newest ones.

There may be a fly in the ointment, as a recent Reuters story suggest:

The drawbacks of the system by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy are that the fast reactors involved are very costly and the reprocessing technology involves handling highly radioactive material yet to be proven on industrial scale. . . .

The challenge lies in the high costs of building fast reactors, . . .

Tim Abram, professor of nuclear fuel technology at Manchester University in Britain [says,]

The big challenge is: can we make it economic? Today, the answer is no, so this remains one of the main goals of the Generation IV initiative . . ."

The Reuters story attributed the expensive assessment to "experts". So we have two different stories about cost. is a backer, and of course backers is his more private moments, when he looks at himself in the mirror, yours truly knows full well, that it is difficult for a backer of advanced technology to be fully objective. I have indeed written about LFTR costs, and indeed have probably gone so far out on a limb, that no expert would willingly be quoted as endorsing my claims. Yet I do have a rational for my LFTR cost claims, several as a mater of fact. So we have some conflicting evidence about S-PRISM costs.

A note on history. History would suggest that as a research project, developing the S-PRISM will be very expensive, and the production of the S-PRISM is likely to be expensive by LFTR standards. This statement is not going to make Steve Kirsch, Barry Brook or Tom Blees happy, but I am not trying to step on their toes. None of them have been LMFRR supporters for very long, and they are relying on the Argonne National Laboratory crowd for their information. The history is that a lot of money has already been put into LMFBR research, In the 1970's ORNL research planners estimated that about 10% of the money spent on LMFBR were spent on Molten Salt Breeder Reactor technology, that is LFTR technology could be made viable. Steve, Tom, and Barry will tell you that the money spent on LMFBR technology has not been wasted. Perhaps not, but we need to look at deployment costs.

Features of the S-PRISM are likely to lead to higher cost than could be expected with the LFTR. First, the S-PRISM requires an expensive fuel reprocessing technology, while a low cost fuel reprocessing technology will be included in the LFTR design. Paying for the LFTR will get you fuel reprocessing too, and LFTR advocates will suggest that LFTRs with attached fuel reprocessing units, will cost less than S-PRRISM reactors with comparable power output. A second S-Prism cost issue has to do with a safety feature, the large pool of liquid sodium that the reactor core will be immersed in. The pool structure will probably not be factory built, and on site construction adds to reactor cost. In addition the large pool structure means a larger reactor housing. The solid fuel has to be mechanically removed from the reactor and transferred to a separate processing unit. Than means that space inside the reactors inner housing has to be allowed for fueling and defueling equipment. The NRC will be concerned about the safety of a reactor that uses a coolant as dangerous as liquid sodium.

Reservations about the safety of sodium cooled reactors first lead Oak Ridge scientists and engineers to develop liquid salt cooled reactors as a safer alternative to Sodium cooled reactors. I have no doubt that sodium cooled reactors can be made safe enough to satisfy the NRC, but because of the sodium safety issue, there will be a cost.

At the moment the S-PRISM reactor has business, institutional and governmental sponsors. These include GE-Hitsachi, Argonne and Idaho National Laboratories (with Sandia jockeying for its own smaller LMFBR candidate), and The US DoE. LFTR advocates can point to a viable research program in France, and a very lively interest community in the United States. It is perhaps a sign of the progress of nuclear power that nuclear advocates feel they can have controversies. In fact the controversies are old, and it is almost inevitable that they will resurface as the case for nuclear power grows stronger.

The future of nuclear power will be dependent on lowering nuclear cost. Although most prognosticators suggest that it will take a generation or longer for low cost nuclear technology to emerge, such judgements are based on business as usual assumptions that are likely to quickly fall by the wayside. The desire for low cost, rapidly scaleable nuclear technology is about to become very urgent. The cost of developing either the LFTR or the IFR to a production phase, is very small compared to world spending on energy during the next 40 years. No one yet knows how much money developing advanced nuclear technology will save, but place that sum into the trillion dollar range.